Talk:20th-century music/Archive 1

Redirect Inappropriate?
I don't think this redirect is accurate; I think Timeline of trends in music would be better. Comments? --zenohockey 01:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rename?
Since there's a rather extensive article on 20th century classical music, perhaps this article should be renamed 20th century popular music? -- T. o. n. y 19:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would vote to keep classical in, but limit its length and put in the cross references to the longer article where appropriate. --Ssilvers 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam and Punk Rock
Why is pearl jam mentioned completely randomly at the end of the punk rock section? This sentence either needs to be removed or expanded with a more in depth analysis on the influence of punk rock.

COTW
Here's a few things that I'd reckon would be worthy of inclusion in this article: Apart from that, I'm stoked. Not much else of interest happened to music in the 20th century. --Thewayforward 09:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pop festivals
 * Napster, file-sharing and the likes
 * Beatles
 * Motown Junk
 * free love
 * Bob Dylan
 * punk
 * Bonzo Dog Band


 * Are you kidding? You could start out with how ragtime started the whole new music thing. Then you could talk about music during WWII, then you could talk about how drugs in the psychadellic 60s changed music so drastically. This article disappoints me. A LOT. I've found very good things on wikipedia, and frankly, I'm suprised.  I don't have all too much knowledge on the matter, but I hope this article gets better. Fast. 199.224.109.217 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a huge amount of 20th Century info in the history of music article.  I suggest that someone start cutting and pasting, and then everyone else can expand, edit, etc.  --Ssilvers 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot depends on how heavy we want to make this article. Just in the second half of the century, we had Rock and Roll, Metal, Punk, Rap and Hip Hop, the birth of MTV and the music video. PDXblazers 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it not be easier to just split up the history of music article? move the entire bottom 3rd of that article, to here? The empty section headings provided in this article, are already all written in that one... No point in rewriting it all. -Quiddity 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NOOooo! You cant just copy it across! That's massive overwhelming redundancy!
 * My previous statement was meant to entail proposing a split on the talk page of history of music, as they're obviously covering exactly the same intended ground. You should propose removing the entire bottom 1/3, and replace it with a short section with a {mainlink} link coming to this article. Because the history of music article needs to be less western and modern -centric, per the comments in the nomination test. Ya? ;) -Quiddity 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on what the best way is to organize this encyclopedia.  If you feel confident, go ahead and propose it or even do it.   As they say, "be bold".   But no one was contributing, so I took the bull by the horns.  --Ssilvers 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean we can't just duplicate the text, because then when someone fixes/adds something to one copy, it wont be in the other. See what i mean? redundant duplication :)
 * I just stumbled in here whilst perusing the community portal, i'm afraid i dont have time to add another project to my list ;)
 * I'll add split template tags, but someone else needs to go explain/discuss the issue at Talk:history of music. -Quiddity 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed from history of music the section that was copied here. Noone replied to my message there. Hopefully this all works out ok. -Quiddity 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but I added back a shortened introduction there. I think that both the introduction here and the introduction there could probably use a one paragraph summary or overview of the musical types that are described below.   Do you agree?  --Ssilvers 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup :) --Quiddity 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added bluegrass music under folk. I'm not sure why folk gets a separate section from popular music. Some of the styles listed under popular music are just as popular (or not) as folk music.Cat 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on so-called public domain music
There is a download link for "Song From A Cotton Field" in this article, which claims to be public domain. My understanding is that under United States copyright law, only music recorded before 1923 is public domain. This song, as I understand it, was recorded after this date. Can anyone confirm whether this song is public domain?

Punk Rock
I have rejigged the bizarrely isolated and badly worded last sentence of this section. Hope that's okay, I wasn't quite sure about how to fit that into the tone of the whole paragraph, any suggestions would be appreciated.Personman 4 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rock Music: Multiple issues
The section on Rock music, in a nutshell, has three issues:
 * weasel words; "The Beatles were influential"
 * referring to specific musicians as if the reader knows exactly who they are "It can be as carefully crafted as a song by Queen, or an album produced by Phil Spector..."
 * Most importantly, it doesn't really describe Rock, it just lists rock artists. I'll add some explanation, but I don't know most of these artists  Rustyfence (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Country Music: Neutrality
There is an extensive paragraph on the controversies associated with country music. "Country music is fairly controversial" is an opinion expressed by the author and no citations are used. Furthermore, no controversies associated with musical forms of rap or rock are are listed. I removed the paragraph but if anyone has thoughts on the issue, please share. Randomness987 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gloria.ogg
The image Image:Gloria.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This article
The purpose of adding maintenance tags to an article is to bring editor attention to issues that might need fixing. Well, somebody's spree has certainly done that. There is no point at all festooning an article with tags when the article as a whole is tagged. It makes it look, er shit, which no reader wants even to look at. Hence I've removed most of those tags and will be working on the article as time permits. Please don't replace them, I might (on a bad day) regard it as disruption and start blocking. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why remarks like this almost always say "somebody's", when the edit history plainly tells who that somebody was. In this case, it was me. The article as it stands is shit, a farrago of unsubstantiated opinion and Original Research. It seemed to me helpful to point out specific problems, particularly for my own reference as I tried to track down verification or refutation of claims but, since you choose to threaten me with blocking, I will accede to your demands and do this the hard way, instead.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left your embedded comments, but the tagging was IMO a case of "Too many notes, my dear Mozart". We may have a farrago, if not a fandango, of opinion & OR, but its layout does not offend the eye of a casual reader. And today is not a bad day when it comes to blocking: yet. -- Rodhull andemu  18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The embedded comments will be helpful, thanks for leaving them in place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to question your attitude, and your language. I don't think it's appropriate for you to threaten editors with blocking when they are simply drawing attention to poor and potentially inaccurate content. Your administrative position does not entitle you to muscle-flex as it suits you and I find it objectionable that you are addressing another editor in this fashion. Please be more responsible in the role you have chosen. Also the 'offends the eye' argument is meaningless. Bad content is more offensive. As you know, on wiki, tags can be used to warn readers about the quality of information they are consuming. Considering the amount of erroneous information on the www, at least in this environment we can encourage people to think more seriously about information consumption - and maybe encourage them to question whether or not what is being consumed is accurate, biased, factual, or simply wrong. I don't think it's constructive to place limitations on this activity, people should wise up. There is no excuse for leaving bad, untagged information in place. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)